The Internet Governance Forum

Dynamic Coalition on Core Internet Values

IGF 2010VILNIUS, LITHUANIA16 SEPTEMBER 10SESSION DC3

1630

DYNAMIC COALITION ON CORE INTERNET VALUES

*****

Note: The following is the output of the real-time captioning taken during Fifth Meeting of the IGF, in Vilnius. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the session, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.

****

>> Now you are talking. We will start in few minutes. The time that the Chair of this Dynamic Coalition sit in his role and ‑‑ you will have to forgive us for the ‑‑ some unprofessional way we will run this ‑‑ he will run that very professionally. I was asked by Siva who is not here unfortunately to take his role during this meeting. But today it was quite difficult but fortunately you are around this table. A lot of people know the subject and a lot of things to say and it will be very easy. I am sure. I will try to make the moderation ‑‑ nobody is designated for this meeting.

>> I was.

>> Now you are the Chair. You are in the moderating online and I will give the floor to Alejandro and you will run the meeting. Thank you for accepting.

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: We will do this together in teamwork. This is a very unfortunate circumstance that Sivasubramanian Muthusamy from ISOC who put together a lot of the work, put in a lot of work to create this meeting, to find an agenda, to invite the speakers and to coordinate it fully was not able to come to Vilnius and it is only in the last day that we found out that he was just not going to be able to come over. So we are going to start this with the best we can. The goodwill, small number, available number of people present and focus on our subject. Will surely help us overcome the difficulties that they can see already at work. One of this is that Siva has engineered the discourse for meetings with the order of speakers and that has not been transmitted to us in enough detail. But I think we can make up for that with the collective intelligence that's gathered here in this room and the wisdom of the individuals which I hope we will convert in to the wisdom of this group.

And second obvious challenge is the sound level surrounding us. So I will encourage everyone who speaks to speak reasonably loud without creating an escalation. Speak slowly because very much the challenge we have is understanding English for many of us who are nonnative speakers. I always have a free train of thought than prepared statements that do not match. But just make ‑‑ let's all make sure that we express ourselves with enough clarity. The people whom Siva have invited are a stellar panel. We have ‑‑ I am going to go from my left in following the direction of the clock. If my memory and notes serve me correctly Sebastien Bachollet. Peter Dengate Thrush had the Chair of the board ICANN. Well‑known, very expert intellectual property barrister and who is making a mark in the domain system on the Internet. Glen from ‑‑ your family name. Glenn Scott. Sorry for that. Glenn Scott from the Imagining the Internet Project from the Elon University School of Journalism and Samantha from the same school. Click plug for you to know that you all have to speak during this session so that Samantha can know who you are and capture you in the corridors and make sure that your words about the Internet are recorded.

Danielle former ICANN board member and very distinguished career on the Internet. Markus Kummer, the secretary of the IGF, extraordinary character. If I start, I will fill the whole session speaking about you in a good way. And we will start with a very brief statement that I would like to make to set the scene, and if I am not forgetting any other appointment speaker, we will immediately hand it over to you. At this time of day the last procedural point, at this time of day most of you have heard a lot and are itching to speak. And on the other hand, some of the appointed speakers have spoken enough and are itching I know to hear what other people think. So we will try to call on you to ‑‑ especially appointed speakers in the initial round to make very sharp pointed statements that invite discussion and we will carry on from that.

If I see a large number of speakers I will put a very tight limit on the time allowed for every speaker. I will start with four minutes and if it gets very active, I will bring it down to three and then to two. As the format demands. Very brief statement to just set the table for what we want to do. As you remember and Markus will be the best person to correct me here if I am stating this wrong, the concept of Dynamic Coalitions we are going to discuss for the case of Internet values came out during the discussions of how to organise and how to let the IGF evolve and would the IGF be good for. People were mostly in agreement with a mandate for the IGF to be basically and foremost a discussion forum. A place for the exchange of ideas and for people who go to other organisations for which they belong and these fresh exchanges and learning from others would go and start things and continue things or stop things but would act in this other fora. However, there was a large number of people with concern that by meeting in a place like the Forum with this open and diverse format would be inclined to take action from their words. The view that was expressed at the time by the meeting society was the first who came with this figure of speech was that surely people would come together in groupings that would be dynamic and grow according to purpose and grow. And follow on on some of the issues that would come out here, like accessibility, like who knows what. That's where the name Dynamic Coalitions first started in my recollection within the multistakeholder advisory group for the IGF. There have been a number of efforts started on different subjects they have been working. There is groupings that meet several times a year in different places. They discuss and put forward proposals for action for different organisations and so on. For the one that we are meeting here today the proposal was put forward by Sivasubramanian Muthusamy as I mentioned from my Internet Society to start a group that would discuss in more depth, and they defined ways to interact with organisations that are out in the field. Those things that make the Internet be the Internet and that if you remove them it stops being the Internet. If you attack them you are attacking the Internet. There has been much speech about these values. Present to this day was a workshop that was organised by Siva in Sharm El Sheikh. A workshop that was in the W3C in Raleigh, North Carolina and in both Sharm El Sheikh and in Raleigh we had the privilege of having some of the founders of Internet standardize of the first technologies that came together as well as other people who came from other walks of life. I will stop there and leave it to Markus Kummer. Markus has told me that he is pressed with several other commitments. I hope he can still make them and have a contribution.

>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you and hello to everybody. Yes, your recollection of the beginning of the Dynamic Coalitions is quite accurate. I would like to not correct but compliment a little bit on your information. It came a little bit out of dichotomy. Those who wanted the IGF to turn in to an organisation, very structured with working groups on this and on that and there are others who said the mandate was much more modest, the IGF was an annual meeting and that's it. And then in the discussion someone came up and said well, maybe there might be Dynamic Coalitions emerging from the discussions. And in Athens I think we had six Dynamic Coalitions and then they sort of came and went. And some of them were more dynamic than others but my feeling was that most of them were not that dynamic. Some of them only, existed to organise an annual meeting and then confusion crept in that they were here to create a workshop at the annual meeting. So we sort of tried to say well, this cannot be the purpose of a Dynamic Coalition if you just go around and organise one meeting. So basically we said we offer a meeting room to each Dynamic Coalition provided they have some sort of sign of activity between the meetings provided that they have reports of their activity. Now we have D‑listed some of them who are dormant coalitions. They can requalify to be relisted if they show a sign of life but on the whole I have not seen that much coming out of them. Quite often it is linked to personalities who are active in driving many issues and then they are transferred and it hangs with them. One of the weakness, we cannot offer any structured support. It depends on the volunteers who are willing to push this. Two of the Dynamic Coalitions that we have on the climate change, on accessibility for people with disabilities are actually supported by the ITU. So they have some kind of institutional support whereas the others live on the enthusiasm and the drive of their respective members. Now Dynamic Coalitions therefore are not just to this admin ‑‑ I haven't seen the agenda. I know that Siva has tremendous energy and enthusiasm, tremendous convening capacity. I was at his workshop last year and I saw the list of speakers and I thought they would never turn up and they all turned up. He was really quite enthusiastic about that on that workshop. I don't know what the plans are to convert the workshop in to something more. And my advice to you will be not just to discuss substance which is very interesting, the core values and then it is worthwhile discussion, but if you think you want to perform a Dynamic Coalition you ought to also consider on how to move forward and who does what and what your internal work programme is but if you meet the next time in Kenya, if everything goes as we hope for, then I think that will not be good enough. You need somebody who will take on the responsibility, write the reports. And I think there should be some activity between the two annual meetings. You don't need to have a physical meeting, of course. You can have a virtual exchange as you kind of ‑‑ there are certain minimum standards. We were never able to define what these minimal standards were. Basically what we would expect is an annual report that documents some activities between the annual meetings. I feel a bit bad it sounds like I am spoiling the party reminding you of some of the work in between. But I think it is essential that you also devote some attention on how these more mundane aspects work. I will stay on a little bit to listen to the discussion and excuse me if I move out earlier. Thank you for your attention.

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: Sebastien. I am going to make the first round with the appointed speakers and then follow the request.

>> SEBASTIEN BACHOLLET: I want to react on what Markus said about Dynamic Coalition. I am not sure if you want to wait or because I was one of the first Dynamic Coalition on open standards. So I went through the process of trying to organise a Dynamic Coalition and it is true that there is no commitment from members of coalition to actually work over a period of time. It is all voluntary base and that is an obstacle to deliverable in. If we define deliverable in a given coalition as producing a document, a guideline or something like we do in the open standard coalition procurement using open standards, then we have the issue of promoting it. Is it okay to promote something outside of the IGF area as an IGF document? The IGF doesn't have this mandate of promoting or deciding on something whether it is a guideline or something and then promoting to my understanding. We have this sort of challenge of on the one hand delivering something and on the other hand not sure what to do with it. We have to decide what are deliverable and what we want to do with them.

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: Thank you. That's an important contribution. I will not be commenting on the importance of contributions. Sebastien.

>> SEBASTIEN BACHOLLET: I wasn't really prepared to make a statement but just to say that I am sure that even if Siva was not able to be here today he will be willing to help this coalition to be set up and to help the work done and to help to do part of the work, of course, and I think it is important what was said. If this coalition just to have a meeting at each IGF it is not a good idea. And what is important is to see if there is enough commitment from the various I will say stakeholders but also the organisations who take part of this Internet arena where you have ‑‑ where we need to share some core values if they agree to work on that and I will not list all but among them and then with no order ICANN, ISOC and W3C and a whole lot of others will be necessary to be involved in this work and I will help Siva to keep informed on what is happening today and I hope that we will be able to have this Dynamic Coalition working and coming back next year at the next stage with something done and not just a meeting. Thank you.

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: Peter?

>> PETER DENGATE THRUSH: I also don't have a prepared statement. I was only asked to appear a short time ago. I can say a couple of things. One I think is a Forum where the core values of the Internet are discussed and refreshed is a great deal of assistance. My worry is that quite ‑‑ there is very little talk about governance. So I would hope that these ‑‑ the relevance of these principles when carried in to governance topics would be something that people would focus on. That's it. I am unable to offer much assistance in relation to formulation of Dynamic Coalition but note there are people around who are prepared to do that. If this is a Forum I am sure that I will be able to assist in getting ICANN people along occasionally to assist. I think the principles that if we get down to talking about those is something we should be looking at and maintaining. Thank you.

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: Thank you. Go to Glenn. Will we hear somebody who is not (Off microphone).

>> GLENN SCOTT: Okay. It is a great pleasure for me to be here today and thank you for having me. My name is Glenn Scott. I am an assistant professor at Elon University which is a university of about 5,000 students, a private school in North Carolina and we have quite a large communications programme. About one fifth of the students at Elon have majors in our school programmes. We are very active in that. Today I would like to provide an update to this Dynamic Coalition on an event that took place and Alejandro already mentioned it very briefly and that was an event that was held last spring. It was called Future Web. It was our inaugural three day session, April 25th to 30th in Raleigh, North Carolina and as mentioned it was held in proximity with the WWW 2010 event which was, of course, much larger but gave us a chance to involve some of the same people and have a chance to raise the discussion of core values in a more regional setting.

That event was ‑‑ as a matter of fact rather than put something on the Web I thought we could as long as everyone has good hands and they promise not to drop it will pass around the Web site on my iPad so you can take a look at it if you choose. If you want to navigate that's great. I would suggest doing it over here on the side where there are no other links because it is very sensitive and it will jump from page to page before you know it. So if that's okay.

>> (Off microphone).

>> GLENN SCOTT: It just got a lot smaller. But that at least gives you an idea. We have a Web site where we are archiving a lot of information that has to do really with core values and that's I think my point today. This event Future Web was superbly organised by my colleague, Jana Anderson who could not come this week. She is the director of Imagining the Internet Centre which is ‑‑ which we do at Elon in conjunction with the Pew Internet and American Life Programme. Our copartner with that is Lee Rainie, who is the founder/director of the Pew programme. So I would like just real briefly to kind of show you with the iPad and talk briefly about the future web but I also thought I should review the Imagining the Internet Centre just for a minute to underscore I think how it is by nature tied to this coalition's quest to weigh the essential values of the Internet. Imagining the Internet Centre, well, I should say the term imagining I think speaks to the predictive function of our project which aims to document the thoughts and ideas of experts and stakeholders like all of us about the growth, the change and the future of the Internet. So I think it is clear that our project shares some similar aims with this group. We ask like you do what is the Internet, how did it emerge and particularly where is it going and what are those implications. It is really no wonder that Professor Anderson who is really the heart and soul of this centre since the 2006 conference in Athens has organised in‑depth coverage and has continued to conduct our video survey of conference participants and among the questions that we pose each year one is to name your greatest hope and your greatest fear about the Internet and we also ask for a very simple response. This year we are asking what does the Internet mean for the future of the world. Samantha and Kirsten across the room here are the two doing the interviewing. If you haven't had a chance to speak with them tomorrow is our last day. I hope you will, because we are actually trying to get as many thoughtful responses. It is not that any one response is so important but since we are all here drilling down to think more about what makes the Internet essential. What are the essential qualities this is I think part of the ‑‑ this is part of our quest and to that degree we held this first conference Future Web this past spring. Now since we ‑‑ since I am going to pass around ‑‑ since the information is being passed I think it is better for you to look on the Web site than it is for me to talk about it. So I think I will stop there and pass the microphone to Samantha.

>> SAMANTHA BARANOWSKI: Hi everyone. Sorry, I turned the microphone off. My name is Samantha Baranowski. I am a student at Elon. I am a newcomer here at IGF. I will try my best. I was asked to speak about a programme called OneWebDay. So I am representing thousands of students who celebrate OneWebDay year round celebrating core values of the Internet and openness of the Internet and the celebration is September 22nd. And it is much like Earth Day which was its inspiration to celebrate the power of the web and opportunities everywhere as a tool for positive change and also to take action to protect what is precious to us about the Internet. We are using this to educate the public and policymakers and our university students participate each year to have Internet coffee parties and they have made over 50 videos in the past two years. Pretty much every marketing ploy.

Last year's theme is One Web For All. Called attention to efforts that will ensure anyone who wants access to the Internet will have that access to it. And one of the core values that's most important to those of you who do celebrate OneWebDay is the idea of person to person sharing because then you don't have that friction caused by intermediary forces. And by this I mean the return of the middle man which would cause bottlenecking and other burdens that would interfere with innovation and openness that is so important especially to the younger generation. There is a short video that we can watch or I can live the link. Students created these videos to celebrate how important the Web is. A lot of people don't understand the inner workings of the Internet we use daily for collaboration, expression, to talk to family, friends, fun. So the students I work with each day wouldn't be able to do our daily assignment without that access to the Internet. That's why OneWebDay is so important to us to share because people especially in our generation can take that time to reflect. One of our professors had a day where we were not able to use the Internet and every student failed miserably within the hour. And it realised the vitality of the Internet to us as a younger generation. So if we can maybe bring that up the video just so you get an idea of how students are sharing these ideas with each other. If you click on the Internet Explorer just further down ‑‑ if we can't get it up, that's okay. We have time. Nope. Okay. Well, then we will just pass it along. But that's all I have to say for now. Thank you for including me on the panel.

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: Thank you for accepting to be on the panel. Daniel Dardailler.

>> DANIEL DARDAILLER: I was part of the panel on the core Internet values and if I remember I'd like to talk about sort of the meat of this coalition, the sort of thing we are going to talk about. So it is not so much the technical aspect that we want to I think write down as a core value. At the workshop last year we sort of alluded to those but those things like end to end principle or separation of content from the presentation made to the user, those kind of things are technical principles that we all lie internally whether at W3C or IGF or somewhere else. We have to think in terms of what would happen if suddenly the W3C community crashed in a plane and we have to be replaced. All of us, the staff and the engineers working on standards, what are the documents that we would have to leave to people explaining what our core values to go from, you know, the Internet to the Internet across the Web. So there are things like the first thing that is important is that before they invented the web we didn't ask anyone for permission. It was the core value of the Internet was that anybody could do anything on top of it. So that's a real important principle. The Web has the same capability. You can build on top of the web any application you want. Like Web 2.0 application and we chap on top of the semantic web is more application. There is this property of being sort of recursively open.

You are open in a sense that anybody can use your technology and you actually succeed with your technology because anyone can use the technology below, like the IP and Internet. So those are the values I think we have to sort out and are related to openness in the standardization process to participation and to sort of the absolute requirement of intraoperability for all the devices. So that's the thing that people have to remember is that before the Internet became the Web and became so popular it was impossible for all of us to connect to the same server because we had a different brand of computer. So we have this kind of thing to keep in mind that are basic principles.

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: Thank you, Daniel. I think that covers the prepared statements and will be very glad ‑‑ please. I know who you are but introduce yourself.

>> MAX SENGES: My name is Max Senges. I work for Google policy in Berlin. Yeah, I would like to try to contribute to this soul searching that seems to be going on and do that in a very constructive manner. I think there is definitely room and a lot of interest in the things that are mentioned as the core themes of this coalition. I actually see two directions that it could focus on. One would be values in terms of ethical values. So much more on the cultural side and, you know, transcultural and intercultural ethics discussion which the colleague from ICANN would probably agree or not necessarily directly governance related but they would however very nicely compliment the work that is done. And one of the coalitions that is actually quite active that is the Internet Rights and Principles Coalition and as the word ‑‑ or as the name already says it takes a human rights framework and then adds Internet principles which we actually had a long discussion whether to call values or principles and what word to choose for them and we ended up with principles. There is a distinction. If the letter is the case, I can only very much invite you to look at the work that has been done over the last years in that coalition. There is a document that defines or transposes the human rights in to the online context and then there is a second section that talks about the core principles and I am sure all of the expertise that is in this coalition will be very, very welcome in as a contribution to our work.

I am not 100 percent I wasn't part of the emergence of this group but maybe just for those who haven't been following the developments there was a Dynamic Coalition in the Hyderabad meeting that was created by IT for change by Parminder Singh and Milton Miller. Again had very similar agenda to work on and after some discussion we saw that the overlap between them called Dynamic Coalition on a bill of rights for the Internet and this coalition was so close and so much overlap that we decided to merge them. And in that regard I think it is interesting that there seems to be an urge and a need for a coalition that deals with values and principles in particular. But yeah, I would hope that we find good ways to compliment each other. And again as a constructive proposal I think this coalition works mainly through a blog during the year in between meetings and the Dynamic Coalition and Internet Rights and Principles has a quite active mailing list where a lot of people that are interested in the subject are already exchanging stuff during the year and are working on concrete outcomes, a/k/a this charter in particular. Thank you.

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: Thank you.

>> WOLFGANG BENEDEK: My name is Wolfgang Benedek. And I can follow very well to what Max just said because we yesterday presented this, the first draft let's say of a charter of human rights and principles on the Internet. I have a few copies still here if somebody is interested to get them. And in this draft we also refer already in the preamble to the core values of human rights and then elaborate a number of rights and principles which certainly are based on such core values as open as digital inclusion, equality, diversity, sustainability, participation and so on. So the question is where do you end, what is core principles and what is just a principle. Network neutrality, is it a core principle or, for example, free and open software, is it core principle that you should use it or is it just a principle. So that is something such a coalition might have to clarify. And as we are still working on this charter we are now in the process of getting feedback and elaborating on it further so that 2.0 version could be presented at the next IGF.

We would also benefit from the work of this coalition if it is able to deepen the issue of core principles. It is also important to do this because this is a common basis for everyone who is in the Internet, who is part of the information society. We have a great diversity here from the regions, cultures, religions, whatever. And if you are able to identify core principles this is at least something we would have in common and certainly one has also to build these core principles together. It is not something that you can just take out of the air. Something that you have to build consensus around and in that sense it is also an activist role such a coalition should play. Having the experience of the other coalitions which Max has just elaborated about and to which he has a lot contributed also in his earlier study on values, principles, rights it is something to look at for maybe the coalition. I would recommend that paper. Then I would suggest that you also think about concrete outcomes. Where would you like to be in one year's time. And in my view that could be a list of core principles with a kind of commentary or whatever but something, concrete product. Because if you only remain as a discussion group then fear you would easily share the experience of other groups and we have heard Markus Kummer telling us what was the final outcome. So in that sense it would be very useful to have clear objectives, clear outcomes and certainly some body or several people like a steering committee who takes the commitment to get you there. Thank you.

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: Is this boring?

>> I think coming ‑‑ I am also part of the Imagining the Internet Centre and I think one of the issues is that a word like net neutrality to youth just don't make sense to the younger generation and these are the people that are going to be effacing these core Internet values in this changing document. I haven't seen the document but I have heard a lot of about it. I think almost dumbing it down and putting it in to plain text so that younger people can understand what net neutrality is, what open access to applications means for them and I don't think it necessarily makes sense to those outside of the discussion who are the users and those that are actually going to be implementing some of the things that we are talking about right now. So I think it just needs to be simplified a bit and made in to terms that everybody can understand so that it means something outside of this room.

>> Just give me a second.

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: Nope, nope. Please allow me. Anybody on that side of the table where I see people would definitely call young, do you agree that net neutrality doesn't make much sense for youth? Is any part of the discussion making sense to you? You may ‑‑ no, it makes no sense. That would be a very important piece of input.

>> I don't think I qualify for being young just like the girls here and yes, net neutrality does mean something to me. I work with industry.

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: Could you state your name please?

>> Repeat please.

>> HENNING: Henning. I am actually here ‑‑ I was interested in the title of the workshop. I have also been attending the Dynamic Coalition that Max has been talking about both at this meeting and at several earlier IGFs and I must say that I think it is very impressive what the coalition have managed to produce so far. Yes. It is a rather good text and it makes the human rights more relevant for the Internet, interprets them in an Internet context. I want to see how this coalition might differ from the other coalition. Thank you.

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: Thank you. And let me make ‑‑ yeah. Please.

>> Sorry. First regarding your question about how much ‑‑

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: Since there is a written record it is useful to have your name.

>> MEIRA KUMAR: My name is Meira Kumar and I am from Lebanon. And regarding your question about how important net neutrality is it is not a question. Of course, it is important to everyone and especially to me because when I want to express my opinions which sometimes are not popular with adults, if I don't have a ‑‑ if we don't have the neutrality we may not be able to have this different type of freedom of expression. Of course, it is an important issue for even the young. I think for the young more than the adults. And sorry for not replying immediately to your question.

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: It is fantastic you thought out your reply. Kirsten?

>> KIRSTEN: I don't think what I am trying to say that net neutrality is not important. It doesn't hold traction because the terms are so large and sweeping that sometimes people outside of the discussion just don't understand what it means. And I think in simple terms we would all agree that net neutrality is important.

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: I am having three speakers because that's what my memory can hold. So...your name first, please.

>> My name is Muriel. I am an ambassador but I am also speaking in my own capacity. I probably will be referring to something that happened and the other speaker who asked for was in the same workshop that I was yesterday and we were just talking about network neutrality and in an indirect way, because we were trying to figure out how important it was to protect children from certain types of content. And it came to the thought that how does ‑‑ then in the main session the same question became raised because of a question and then I think really it is a big issue. But I agree with you that the concept is not clear at all. When we talk about network neutrality we are including so many different things in the concept. But anyway, building a concept is also a difficult work to do. And you face some kind of also difficulties, issues and tasks. And you have to agree in a lot of stuff. So the point is when we were talking about network neutrality we were trying to figure out how identity is becoming an important issue regarding the use of the network and in relation to the importance of protecting children. That is an important idea in terms of defining the idea of network neutrality I think. That's my opinion.

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: So I have you.

>> I was talking about a global I.D. system that day.

>> Name, name.

>> CARLOS: Sorry. My name is Carlos. I am a local journalist. I think that the discussion doesn't make any sense. Because the Internet is just a tool as any other tools and we all in the United Nations agree that democracy is a good thing and Internet should be governed in those basic principles which are implemented in the western society for the last 250 years.

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: And I have Samantha.

>> SAMANTHA BARANOWSKI: Just to add on to what Kirsten had brought up and what you brought up I don't think it is necessarily young people but users in general that aren't understanding the jargon. It is similar for us as students coming in to these conferences not necessarily knowing the technical words and I brought that up in the beginning. So after interviewing nearly six people ‑‑ 60 people at this conference in the last two days one thing that has brought up which is an issue with IGF there isn't much representation of users and if the users can't understand some of the issues that we are bringing up, I am just curious as to the grass roots engagement that democracy requires is going to happen. How we can pass these things along because I feel like a large barrier to what we are doing is awareness, if we can't explain exactly what's going on in simpler terms if we will.

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: Thank you and I have ‑‑ it is Meira.

>> MEIRA KUMAR: Yes. Sorry. Regarding her question, regarding her saying that net neutrality is not important to young people, I want to give her a concrete example.

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: She said it is important but that she defines the concept ‑‑ what she said in English, it doesn't carry a lot of traction. I was just going to explain. This is a very American expression. So let me explain American English to you quickly. My non‑American understanding remember, I am from Mexico. So we are neighbors but not. Not there. Well, one day we will take over. (Laughter).

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: Just leave us one more generation. The traction, not attraction. But traction is what makes cars move. It is like friction of something that moves that's called traction. Like you call four wheel traction vehicle. And the expression means that when they say that something doesn't have a lot of traction, it means that it is expressed but it doesn't cause a lot of movement. It doesn't inspire action. It is not well understood. So talk about cross cultural.

>> MEIRA KUMAR: My apologies.

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: That having been said you are not going to speak in favor of net neutrality against Kirsten, but I would still think that we would love to hear you speak about net neutrality.

>> MEIRA KUMAR: Just one thing, I was going to give her an example that, for example, I am from Lebanon, from the Middle East and we have many topics especially related to sexuality stuff that the only space to discuss all those topics and to find information about them is on the Internet. So without net neutrality it is like the only place where we can breathe. Actually it is, for example, it is illegal in my country to have ‑‑ to be gay and to express this. So without net neutrality and without the net you will not be able to form groups and communities to resist the actual government. It is very important and depends in which part of the world you are. Sorry.

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: I am glad you brought this forward in this way. I am trying to actually move the discussion not to impose a view on it. Maybe we can dedicate a few minutes to I think to go through a door I think you opened, which is the door of understanding network neutrality. There are many different ways in which people understand network neutrality. So do you think you could provide a sound byte of what you understand?

>> MEIRA KUMAR: Net neutrality is about people being able to access the Internet without having control of what they are saying and ability to maintain the privacy of their identity. Like, for example, the Government should not have the right to track all my international activity and link it back to my physical personality. I should have the option to be anonymous on the Web. It is like remaining and I guess we can all go to Wikipedia to get the definition of this term.

>> JANIS: One of the main principles of democracy is ensuring that private property is safe and when you are anonymous it is much more difficult for the law enforcement to ensure that whole private property. I mean private property of artists in the Web like songs, books and movies are protected. We should get a global I.D. system.

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: And a global identity system, that you are identified every time you are on line you check in.

>> JANIS: Yes. It would be easier to catch thieves and protect children from abuse, protect people from stalking, protect from money theft like in electrical banking systems and stuff like that. It should be diffused. The banking identification systems with ‑‑ everybody should get an I.D. It should be made possible.

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: I will leave us a footnote that they have some disagreements but the discussion you open, I mean Meira has opened a very interesting door and you have opened an even more interesting one. I would like to know if someone wants to react to that and I am looking at the guy who is itching called Victor Roberto.

>> I think I ‑‑ first of all, I had ‑‑ I was trying to understand the point of the meeting in the sense whether we want to discuss the different possible core values or whatever or just prepare a discussion on that but then, of course, I would have to comment on that.

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: I think that the way we are proceeding is going to be a healthy one which is to ‑‑ we are in the middle of a brainstorm. It is getting to ve a very lively and interesting brainstorm about some issues that are related to values people hold and they think they should be reflected or protected by the Internet. I think we begin to see that some of them may be contradictory with each other. So I think that we should carry on this brainstorm part for a few minutes more. We will not exhaust all issues. It seems it will be on one or two issues and then I would like to come back to a more procedural thing and it would be how to proceed if people want to proceed on core Internet values.

>> I am President of the ISOC in Sweden. You can view net neutrality from a purely technical view as well. Meaning that any operator should not filter any protocol. Like, for instance, the application Skype which you can use for telephony should not be filtered through the network. That's another view leaving out the various privacy and what Governments can think of. I would supply that. That's a different view in light of what we talk about ‑‑ what we talk about net neutrality.

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: Thank you. So I will have Victor thank Peter for your presence here and wish you the best. So I will have Victoro and Meira. Do we allow Victoro first? No, no.

>> If you like. No, I just wanted to make a point which already came up in the discussions in the Internet rights coalition which when you start talking about values it is very hard to find common ground. If so, actually in this kind of an idea it is very easy to have an initial founding group and knows what they want to say and protect values in some manner. It is harder when you go out and discover more people and you discover they have more views and it becomes more difficult. So this is one problem that whatever groups comes out of these might have to confront with. And yes, I think that network neutrality is still a concept not well understood, not well explored, especially because it is not at a technical level. By the way at a technical level it might be easier to understand. So that might be an easier part of the work. It come up network neutrality at the economic level because people started to understand you can really affect competition and now several people are starting to realize it comes up at social and political level because it can affect freedom of expression and your ability to choose the source of your information, your news source and newspaper. And the Internet is not neutral, the circulation of information and the ability to self‑organise from the bottom can be stopped. Then, of course, you will have to understand at which level you want to bring these coalitions there or whether you want to work on technical principles and economical principles and political whatever.

>> MEIRA KUMAR: In reply to the guy I saw your tweets earlier that you were saying we should have this kind of I.D. before going to the net, we should use it. Actually it is one of the ‑‑ if this happens I consider it a nightmare personally because you are creating a lot of data and you are giving it to Governments and to other people that can have access to those systems illegally. For example, hackers hack credit cards and bank systems and very secure systems. So are you ‑‑ you are not only creating this data you are assuming that Governments are good. That all Governments in all the world are good. And that there are no other like criminals, partisan governments that will access this information and you are building a big data mining for marketing companies to track your behavior. It will be hell if it is built.

>> I think you are good and I think you have voted in the election in Lebanon. I think you have voted. Governments come from people at one point.

>> MEIRA KUMAR: You should live in the Middle East for like five days only and you will change your mind.

>> I am not going anywhere except Israel. I am joking. I think that no companies or no governments should collect information about people without their consent.

>> MEIRA KUMAR: How can you ensure this?

>> Well, the European Council is preparing a recommendation for whole Europe to implement in the judicial systems for ‑‑ well, it is ‑‑ it has much flaws but the main idea is good. Like if 47 country members would ‑‑ by their own will implement that law Google and other companies should always ask in a simple way, not 50 pages document, if the person wants to continue because his data will be read; does he want to give out the data and stuff like that. I don't think that anything should be done against anyone's will. But to ensure that to protect people, to protect children, to protect businessmen, to protect by saying businessmen, I mean artists because I think the next step of the economy is going to be all arts. I don't think the leading countries of the world are going to make cars, refrigerators, computers. I think the biggest countries in the world are going to make arts and if we want to be competitive we have to protect private intellectual property as much as we can. By no means ensuring in anyone's life doing anything against anyone's will.

>> MEIRA KUMAR: That doesn't justify a system that you have to use when you go on the Internet. You can use the system when you log in on a Web site where an artist is showing off their work. So I want to log in to this Web site that is sending artwork. I have to use some log in but not creating a identification system that has to be used when going on the Internet. That's very huge. 1 million Web sites on the Web. 10 million are for art stuff and for selling stuff and intellectual property. You can't justify this, and if you measure the risks and benefits you are saying the benefits are tracking criminals. We already have ways to track criminals and track identity theft.

>> Sorry. I will just ‑‑ I will finish in two minutes. I don't think that the Internet will be separate from the world and you won't be able to enter U.S. servers freely as you do now because we see the borders are being raised and, for example, you cannot watch some videos on the net if the company, for example, didn't pay for the broadband to the foreign countries of the U.S.

>> MEIRA KUMAR: Do you think we should encourage those borders by creating those nationalities and tracking those people? Do you think ‑‑

(Talking at the same time).

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: I will move to other speakers for a moment and this is ‑‑ I think you are hitting really the core of the issue with one issue as an example. So I am personally not stopping the discussion. I am just giving other people a chance to intervene and also that may ‑‑ Carlos, I am sorry to lose you. Okay. So please introduce yourself.

>> Thank you. My name is Blogi Rebullo. I am from the Philippines. I value what Wolfgang mentioned awhile ago. A lot of principles that can apply to the Internet but we have to figure out which ones are the core values and it is a quarter before 6 p.m. and we have not even decided on one core value yet. I suggest that we include feedible expression as one of the core values.

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: Thank you. I have Kirsten.

>> KIRSTEN: Well, he is gone now but I just wanted to respond to this I.D. Everyone is on and this is open accessibility and the one way to cancel all the progress we made of getting so many people hooked to the Internet is to say if you have to log in and everything you do will be tracked and I wouldn't be interested in and I would stop using the Internet if I had to agree to something like that. There is a fear that Government is not always going to act for us and in your best interest and honestly the criminals before are going to take the new rules and the new laws and still find a way to break them. I don't think it is going to solve the problem by adding an I.D. and it is going to create a new problem and creating fake identities and using somebody else's name to do your crime. So I don't think it will work.

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: Thank you. Do you want to talk?

>> MANS ADLER: Hi my name is Mans Adler. I handle all the user that get angry when things don't work the way they want it to work. Yeah, if the policies or a Web site doesn't follow their things and I think it is something that, of course, the users on one hand is very nonpresent in those discussions that we have during the IGF. I also see very few of the entrepreneurs during their daily lives have to answer 50 questions a day and whereas I have this delete button, et cetera, et cetera. This is something to keep the net neutrality really up there as a topic as something that, you know, the Governments or the organisations such as this should help entrepreneurs and innovators of those services. I don't see Mark Suckerburg sitting back thinking five years ago how the privacy policies would rise, and if he made those decisions earlier maybe he wouldn't have those problems that he had the last couple of years.

I missed a lot in the discussion here. It seems like the people talking do not handle users in everyday lives which have complaints about policies and privacy issues, et cetera, and also they often take in to consideration that most of those services are small companies, 5 to 15 employees. We have a quarter of a million users that cover 170 countries. We have no way of ensuring that freedom of speech is kept right. There are more languages spoken on our Web site every day and a small organisation like that can hold. So there is a lot of things that in the practical world does not look as beautiful as it might sound in here sometimes. Just a view of it.

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: And views is what we are looking for. So thank you. I will hand it over to you.

>> FELIX: My name is Felix. I am a student with the DiploFoundation, but I also have a background of Government. During the discussion that we were having it was like Samantha said the users are the ones that should be represented more in the building up of the principles that we are trying to come up with. If we as the Government or NGOs without taking in to consideration or taking input from the users I think we will miss the point of building this principles. And with the discussion that was going on I think there is a need to separate net neutrality from anonymity. From my digital forensics background which I also have I think we are being profiled left, right and centre without knowing. So whether it is going to be done in the open or continue to be done in the way it is being done I think it is neither here nor there. We might as well if it means using identities to log on let's do so and so that everyone is in the open. We don't have people hiding behind others because we are not really enjoying anonymity. The anonymity that we think we are really enjoying is not really there. Thank you.

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: Thank you. So I would recognize if we have two more speakers, Charles and Sebastien.

>> CHARLES GAY: Thank you. My name is Charles Gay, one of the Internet Society ambassadors. And I am speaking in my own capacity. When we talk about net neutrality in a security and then we also talk about freedom of expression it is a little bit difficult for me, for us to find a solution to this problem right now. Because when you say security then we at the same time we are talking about freedom of expression, freedom of connection, net neutrality. See there are many topics that we are dealing with at the same time and even if we discuss these topics when it comes to security we should also understand that even the criminals even as we discuss they, too, are finding other means every day. So can we just take one of these topics and see, find a solution to that topic first so that that which is very important then we can get to the other one, but I can see we are carrying everything at the same time. And next thing is the Internet was free from the beginning and I am sure it will continue to be free. Because those who discover the Internet just imagine they call a meeting that everyone was going to give their views before they can put the mechanism together for the Internet to operate, it is going to take a long time. Because one says I want it to be this way. It won't go as we see it today. So what we can do is that let's think about a way in making the Internet just to be free as we are talking about net neutrality, security, freedom of speech, freedom of connection. Can we just address one and find a solution because there are too many? Thank you.

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: Charles, Sebastien. And I think we will end the brainstorm for now unless some points have to be made but I think we should move to the procedural aspect. So I ask you to ‑‑ okay. I will have you. And then I will ask the people present in the room to think what they want to say for that the last segment of the session which will be how to move forward.

>> Thank you. My name is online moderator. I will read some of the comments on the chat. It was before the last presenter but some like why can't you focus on the core value subject. Just speak a few and talk about that. Conversation while entertaining is so broad will end up being useless. Another is in the ISOC Indian hub. This session is getting ‑‑ digressing in to broader areas. And I will read a more longer statement made from the orgainser by ISOC Green Lakes. Business gets affected when they are biased to free flow of trade information on the Internet. Governments are stressing when (Off microphone) DPIC inspection for political espionage. The common man is affected when there is censorship and filtering. What could happen to all stakeholders if the free Internet regressed back to be the electronic equivalent of a control like postal services or managed telephone service characterized by your cable TV, like pricing button. Thank you.

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: Thank you. So let me first make a very brief comment on what we have been going through. I beg to disagree with the comments which I find the discussion we have had, the brainstorming we have had of little use. I think that we needed to go through that. It was absolutely necessary to go through that discussion and I thank Meira and I think Carlos even in absence for being bold. I am thanking you for being bold in putting forward your points of view as well as Meira. You have each provided ‑‑ yes and Kirsten and everybody else, but I think that the part that I think was maybe a little bit of a cause of a complaint would be getting in to these issues in such detail and at the same time making ‑‑ in the perception of some of the listeners overbroad.

I think this discussion was absolutely necessary before we decide how to organise something like a Dynamic Coalition which Wolfgang Benedek correctly said would require some organisation and would require some formalization. Some set of even minimal rules that would make people say well, I am in or I am not in. Things like that. We needed that discussion in order to see the depth of the disagreement that can exist about values on the Internet. We start ‑‑ you both start from very similar point of view which is the Internet should be open and valuable for young people. And you put forward two things, two sets of things that young people and also grown‑ups find valuable and useful on the net. Carlos put forward the protection of intellectual property and the protection of theft which are very important values for people who are going to go on the Internet to make money, to make a living from intellectual, from knowledge work. Knowledge workers should be concerned that they are able to make a living. Whether the way to do that is by a strict intellectual property protection system and whether ‑‑ and the strict system of security for eCommerce and whether the way to achieve that is by a strict identity system and logging in is an open question.

My view is that we have to live with the openness. But again I mean that's ‑‑ that is one rationally well constructed view and its principle based. It is based on a set of principles and interpretation of them for real life. What I see in Meira's view which I share deeply is a view of things people need to do on the Internet like find information, think about it, discuss it. Maybe with other people through the Internet. Maybe because some of these people live in countries where the subjects they are discussing are very sensitive or as you mentioned in one case clearly illegal and the view that you put forward is that the only way to achieve these things that people need to achieve on the Internet for their lives and for their individual and society lives is through a way of running the building and running the Internet. That is so open that you can be anonymous and hard to identify you. Even if as Alex says are being profiled all the time, at least it is harder to stick a profile of your activities on you in real space to take you to jail. So these are two opposite views. These are starkly opposite views. Sorry Carlos, we are trying to move now to a procedural stage and what I am saying this controversy between you and the rest of the room that you marked it and I am very thankful that you were bold to come through with your views, this controversy shows us that Internet should be so open so we can live our lives reflected on the Internet, find the information we need for our identity and health and create and publish and sell our intellectual work. Even with that basic statement we can come to very opposite views. So now let's think a second and I hope I can elicit thoughts from people who have been through similar discussions earlier, how do we build a group. First if and then how do we build a group that we would call a Dynamic Coalition under the very vague open rules of Dynamic Coalitions in the IGF that can be useful and these values can be as Wolfgang Benedek very correctly said be developed. We don't take these values from writing on walls or stones or read them in the clouds or tea leaves. We discuss them and we build them as we apply them and interpret them. So if we can do that that is one point of discussion and how to approach it. Now moving beyond the brainstorm that shows us how stark differences we are going to find in this process forward.

>> Yeah, I think one of the first items we need to study is what Max mentioned which is the other coalition working on this sort of similar theme than this one and see that we don't reinvent the wheel and what are our specificities compared with those. I think we need to start with them and then once we have done that we saw what others are doing then we can try to sort of identify the scope of our work. I think it is important to do. I didn't know that it was so similar in a sense that it was a merge already of another coalition, start of principle for the Internet. So we need to explore that a bit.

>> GLENN SCOTT: This is Glenn Scott. And I was fortunate to sit through that Dynamic Coalition meeting a couple of days ago and in fact, this is aside from the point but we will have a report on that on our Internet site. What was nice about their work is that they had a document to work from which was the 1948 UN declaration of human rights and as Wolfgang will say that served as the basis for their efforts to consider what human rights need to be laid out because somehow they are more particular, more unique to an online experience. So where do they need to take this great leap to their own charter. In this case I would ask is there any starting point, are there any documents in place right now that might serve to be some sort of a foundational blog?

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: Thank you. I think we are coming to some responses but I am sorry I skipped you earlier. Fully apologetic for that. Your name again for the record.

>> HENNING: Henning. It might have seemed as a starting point at that meeting but I have been to four IGFs and in front of the discussion, on the side line and actually that discussion took off as far as I remember a bit like this without a particular goal at the first meetings and after having discussed well, different settings they decided that it was not really possible to agree globally once again on values, which is why they could take the values that already existed at the creation. And I think that it is ‑‑ there is some good things taken in the declarations, a starting point. It is widely accepted and if this work is ever going to, I don't say it is supposed to be, but if it is ever going to be a political document that we are going to formulate here then the receivers of this document would be more tuned to the ideas that we might have, it might be an idea.

Anyway, as a way forward I would suggest that the group actually read the document from the Dynamic Coalition and Internet on Human Rights and Principles and see if you agree with the principles, consider if there is a lack of principles according to your opinion here. And also perhaps consider if it would be possible to formulate them, the principles in a more understandable way so they can be communicated not only to young people but I would say to normal people. That is not the people that attend the IGF because we are more or less salvaged before we come here. Thank you.

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: Thank you, Henning. Wonderful.

>> I am Sara from Thailand. I would like as long as we discuss and the issue that come up about like Internet value has come about how Internet is open. So I think that maybe we just stick with the value and try to ensure that openness of the Internet is still like not done, daunting about like the way try to like a filtering system, things cause. This idea is very bad. We spent our life in a day through the Internet pretty much. So Internet should be like a kind of basic, I don't know, basic space for us as well. It seems in the developing countries when we build a road, we build a road that we can transport food, transport many good things. In the sense of Internet as well we should ensure the Internet will expand to be like accessible for the people in the outer world. Not necessarily in the Internet access can like do best like this. Thank you.

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: Thank you. Sebastien?

>> SEBASTIEN BACHOLLET: I read the comments made by Issac, Great Lakes hub. Believe that all problems can be solved with a right base approach. The theme of this coalition is in no way related to the rights coalition which became the coalition of rights and principles sometime last year. Thank you.

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: Okay. Any other interventions?

>> Thank you. Like I speak before I come here from the curiosity of trying to figure out what these various principles and rights are all about, but I see the challenge that we have is that these values, principles and rights are different according to communities, according to regions, according to nations. So I think what this Dynamic Coalition can do is to do maybe best effort. That is build up from regions and find the common ground to come up with the global definitions of these values, principles and rights. Otherwise it is bound to be a lot of conflict. And I have to assume that we are working on the premise that our Governments are working to the benefit of the Internet users rather than to consider Government as wrong elements. Those Governments are elected by people. So if the Government is a problem, then that is a problem that can be solved as opposed to bringing that aspect in to the issue of values, principles and rights. Thank you.

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: Thank you very much. Any other thoughts on a procedural way to go forward? Again state your name so the interpreters ‑‑

>> Blogi Rebullo. One long term well, I wouldn't say solution but one long term thing that we could do probably to address this and to continue this Dynamic Coalition is to support ‑‑ well, for IGF to support regional and national IGFs and that to encourage these IGFs to continue this Dynamic Coalition. For example, it is very premature to say but we are in the conceding stage, in the thinking stage for a regional IGF and if that does happen, we would like to continue this Dynamic Coalition on perhaps formulating or coming up with a set of Internet core values. Perhaps that's one thing we can do. And another thing probably is if we are talking about procedures then perhaps Mr. Chairman could gather e‑mail addresses, if everyone is willing to create possibly a space on the Internet for us to continue discussing this issue. Thank you.

>> ALEJANDRO PISTY: Let me just introduce I mean a piece of fact here, Blogi, which is that IGF, I will be as bold as to say that IGF does not exist. And I see some ascent from old IGF timers. It does not exist in the form of an organisation. IGF is an event. It is an important meeting and we can make it an important meeting or we can kill it by reducing its importance. We convey a view through a summary that we believe this discussion will be invariably continued in regional IGFs or national IGFs which I am not sure that ‑‑ I mean IGF is not a brand. So IGF does not decide what regional or national IGFs. If someone comes up in your country and says this is an IGF and that will be then ‑‑ that will a Philippines IGF. That will be the IGF that will be.

We say that the discussion is going to continue in meetings which are like the IGF elsewhere and we find value ‑‑ we the people seated here signing with our names some of us ‑‑ you can see that I didn't even pass a roll call. So every one of is not assuming a ‑‑ I am not assuming a lot of consent from you to use your name even as reporting the discussions because you may be uncomfortable with that. Some of us will sign our names in the summary. Some of us thought this discussion could be enriched at the regional and national level. I mean I will interpret some of the things that Meira has said, for example. Meaning that probably ‑‑ not probably, to be very hard to organise a meeting in a country where there are concerns about Government law and attitudes like the ones you expressed. It would be very hard to make a physical meeting there that discuss these things in the terms that you have here. Actually be putting some people in to peril or in to a position that they don't want to be. And then, you know, saying that we will only learn from people and regions with value sets like yours or the ones in your environment. In the global meeting where it is perceived as safer or more comfortable.

So that's the most we will be able to say. I fear that any Dynamic Coalition on values that and ‑‑ as we heard reported this is also ‑‑ you are the witness here, Glenn, even the human rights one has some serious controversies. We all agree on the text. But some Governments will immediately create a place where others will solve in order to reach the declarations there. We would run in to a lot of trouble if we try to build this around any given set. I think that what we will probably have to do as a programme of work is to create a discussion space. To make sure that some of the participants today feel comfortable with possible forms of anonymous participation. And on the other hand, Carlos would have to feel comfortable in an environment where people are deliberately anonymous and offline. We would have to see why this is reasonable and to put forward what have been mentioned as Core Internet values like openness, intraoperability and end to end, these very basic original values and see the match or mismatch with the human rights Dynamic Coalition. Engage in that dialogue.

That programme of work seems enough for a year for any number of people, be it three in Elon University or a half a million all over the world. Will that seem to represent a conclusion that we see that ‑‑ even the discussion of ‑‑ the summary would be a discussion of even one word in the list of core values of Internet like openness creates such a lively debate that we perceive that the first step that has to be taken is to create a discussion space to build up an understanding of the issues. Does that seem to represent what you would all agree is the minimum? Sebastien?

>> SEBASTIEN BACHOLLET: Yes, I totally agree with your conclusion. I just want to make one single point that if you are willing to be part of this coalition don't give your business card to the Chair but give it to me. I want to decrease his load of work because he already has a lot to do and I will try to involve you and also the people who were on line today on the full wrapup of this work. Thank you.

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: Meira?

>> MEIRA KUMAR: Sorry, I am taking the mic a lot. Regarding what you said I think it would not be fair not to include everyone who could be interested. Because the people here, we have other people in other panels. So we can't assume that we are the people that should decide on this. So maybe if we can set up something that like a Web site, like maybe we can have the link on the main IGF Forum. Maybe we can have a couple of journalists covering an event chair this initiative. So maybe we can call for people to join us and what I personally think is that if we are going to sit and discuss all the time what should be our values we are never going to end up discussing and even if we don't agree I think we should work together. Because eventually I cannot be the same ‑‑ I cannot have the same values as you and you cannot have the same values as me. It is not discussing to reach common values. We must have a discussion on the values. That's the core of having a coalition. We must have values and goals and guidelines, but at the same time we must start working actual stuff to start protecting the people who are suffering the lack of net neutrality. And regarding meeting at my country or local IGF it is not that bad. Not like that you imagine. We have plenty of events and it is like some topics ‑‑

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: There are worse places.

>> MEIRA KUMAR: Okay sure.

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: I didn't mean to interrupt you. No, I didn't mean in any way to be exclusive of other people. I only think that we can make commitments to work right now with some of the people who are here. I hope you can tell ‑‑ Sebastien as he mentioned he will be glad to identify those of you who want to continue this. What you want to do. You want to go on or just want to be informed of progress. And we should look at setting up a Wiki, Web site, blog, forum, some form of online interaction. And give discussion, some guidance. I would suggest that exploring the issue of openness and the issues it opens, the questions, I mean like the very rich lively and significant debate you already had here, this is how it branches out and just map out the discussion and say okay, then maybe there can be agreement on things where people don't ‑‑ the problems they didn't know exist they will find they are agreeing and problems they know well they will finally agree when they explore further. Some mapping out of the debates that branch out from what at the very minimalist that has been listed as core values. So yeah, I mean it is not a debate thing. I am endlessly debating society by it has the programme to map out debates. We will say okay, there is no conclusion here because the differences are too stark, but we know the debate goes that way and we hope others will follow up and we go back to the core and branch up elsewhere and see what the debates are.

>> MEIRA KUMAR: I will contact the guy here and ‑‑ sorry, and I will contact and we can set up a Web site. It takes me like 30 minutes to set it up and maybe you can give me the contact info of somebody in the global IGF so we can have it on the main Web site. That's great.

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: That's the way to go. Just build it. I see ‑‑ go ahead.

>> GLENN SCOTT: One last thought just to add on it is a provocative idea that a Dynamic Coalition like this could be exploring values without necessarily seeking agreement. I like that idea. Given that we have a global context here. It differentiates this group from the Dynamic Coalition working with human rights and principles. Because they are trying to seek a stronger agreement per point. But the notion that we might be more interested in maps and ranges and circumstances and extents as opposed to one sort of overall value that everyone can buy in to might make more sense in some ways. At least as a first step.

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: Thank you. Unless someone is itching to speak I will make a very brief closing statement. It is ‑‑ yes. Very brief.

>> I wanted to add just a thing related to the last comment. And regarding what Charles has said before. I think the important thing about rights in the context of Internet deferring from the rights before the Internet appeared is they have different dimensions. We were used to thinking about rights in the kind of social, political, economical ones and now we are seeing that some rights in the context of Internet have all those dimensions. So the approach that is proposed I think could be enriched in that sense.

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: I have a very, very brief statement in closing. I am impressed and overjoyed to have been able to attend this meeting. Having been able to moderate, to participate designator as moderator. I won't say I moderated. It went better than moderate. I am very proud to have been here this afternoon. I am very glad we have been able to have such bold, clear statements that are rather unusual for the IGF. The IGF is more about don't bother your neighbor. And that is absolutely glorious. The fact that people with white hairs have been able to restrain ourselves for awhile before trying to speak again and letting people who are living the Internet in a very different way, it is an environment you found already started and built and are now going to build and transform. That is genius work and I am very proud again in the name of all participants to have been here.

>> I wanted to say this is the advantage of having young people because young people are usually less diplomatic and they have less image to worry about and less concerns. (Applause.)